So, now that the Xoom has flopped, can we finally agree that "tablet" means "iPad"?

[I agree with much of that but you are conflating minor issues with a device and issues with a platform. Sure there are issues with any piece of hardware but the length of charging time is of little or no consequence to the health and profitability of the platform and developers who also want to look at cost/benefit of developing on said platform. The same way the Transformer Prime GPS debacle might be bad for ASUS it probably has little effect on the Android as a whole, seriously can you imaging if the iPad 3 had a bad gps and Apple's solution was to hand out GPS dongles. Apple is a little different case model because they make the whole widget so you can't separate the platform from the hardware but that actually make dev's lives much easier in the end.

I agree to disagree that the Android fragmentation isn't a big issue for a platform but I can see the other side too. I do agree that there are some serious advantages to having many different configurations but that does come at a cost and so far Google would appear to not be making a whole hell of a lot of money on it. As Android gets bigger and more complicated it's going to become harder for Google to control which leads to the question why is Google doing it if there isn't money in it and it's going to get even more costly to oversee? Look at Samsung, arguably Google's premier handset manufacturer, now looking to get into the mobile advertising business or even the Fire which probably brings home even less bacon for Google due to its more Amazon-centric nature. Google has to ask themselves why exactly they are putting all this time and effort into a platform that is increasingly getting more of a PITA to keep together. MS built an empire on an OS but they actually made money on the OS hand over fist.

Except there are tons of things that point to Google already making a lot of money or in the process of. I mean we hear how it would be great for people to fork it and/or duplicate Google's services so they don't have to pay Google. Well if they are paying google, then it must not be trivial to make it worth their time. Plus, even using that 550mil number--that translates to $2B this year. Furthermore, as time goes on, some of those fragmentaiton problems go away (like with resolution independant ICS), plus the base hardware gets better solving some of those problems.

Plus, there are indications (I forget which link) that suggested that Google's revenue per user per year was going up. That bodes very well for them as the $2B is using the same figure.

Plus--I think that the differentation is great to get things out there, but I think that there will be some consolodation of form factors and specs--such that fragmentation on the hardware level will actually go down.

Plus, the platform doesn't seem that fragmented. How do you mean there? Most of the fragmentation is hardware.

Sure you have Amazon--but there aren't that many Amazons how there. Sure, Samsung is going to try and have an ad service, but do you really think it will be very successful? I don't. I mean, I know people love to throw up Amazon as some huge problem for Google, and I just don't see it.

Fair points all but I still can't shake the feeling that Google is the underpants gnome of mobile OS's. Step one give away Android, Step 2..., Step 3 Profit!. I'm not being factitious just that with Apple and MS I see a deliberate strategy to sell a product and make profit off of it. Apple for example sells the iPhone and has the iTunes store which they jealously guard from 3rd parties. Google is letting Amazon do their own store. Ads are Google's core financial pillar and even putting a chink in that armor isn't a good thing and the whole purpose of Android is supposed to be an all the time ad revenue stream for Google. Samsung has something like 90% of the smartphone market and the Asian tendency to be xenophobic and embrace homegrown products can make it a sore spot for Google and if they can make a success of it others will too. What happens if China starts to demand that Baidu be default on their handsets? I'm just saying that you loosely control your own platform and bad things are going bite you in the end.

Once again, based on the clear success of the new iPad, I have no idea why in the world you feel that these component updates can't wait until next year's update. There is no reason for a new product variant of the device to be released for these upgrades.

Your argument assumes a sense of urgency for Apple that isn't present in the market at this point.

How about the fact that they are already manufacturing 32nm variants of the A5? Meaning that they have "silently" transitioned the iPad2 without announcing it, further cementing my belief that they will "silently" transition the iPad3 without announcing it.

Again, they could wait til 2013 if the volume isn't available, perhaps to save it for the iPhone, or if the demand isn't there, or the contract is unfavorable.

But at the same time I imagine if they could do it for a reasonable cost/profit savings, I don't see why they would avoid it. Die size would theoretically drop from 163mm to 93nm and power consumption (and heat dissipation) would as well if no new functionality is added.

That's entirely reasonable, and backed up with evidence. You're right.

Fair points all but I still can't shake the feeling that Google is the underpants gnome of mobile OS's. Step one give away Android, Step 2..., Step 3 Profit!. I'm not being factitious just that with Apple and MS I see a deliberate strategy to sell a product and make profit off of it. Apple for example sells the iPhone and has the iTunes store which they jealously guard from 3rd parties. Google is letting Amazon do their own store. Ads are Google's core financial pillar and even putting a chink in that armor isn't a good thing and the whole purpose of Android is supposed to be an all the time ad revenue stream for Google. Samsung has something like 90% of the smartphone market and the Asian tendency to be xenophobic and embrace homegrown products can make it a sore spot for Google and if they can make a success of it others will too. What happens if China starts to demand that Baidu be default on their handsets? I'm just saying that you loosely control your own platform and bad things are going bite you in the end.

Umm..step 2 is sell a crapload of handsets. and yes it has led to profits, and a lot more to come. $2+B this year alone looks about right. Plus not entirely clear what is counted in their revenue estimate at this time.

Plus, Google has a history of giving things away for free--search, email, maps, etc.

They get it back on the ads.

Samsung has 90% of the smartphone market? I can only assume this is hyperbole?

Yep, that could happen in China. It is a risk. One I imagine they work on--but that same risk is there for the desktop too, right?

The real threat is MS. and it is looming larger and larger. First you have WP7 that is showing huge percentage gains y/y (though starting out low makes large percentage gains easier) and should expand as more handsets actually make it to market (and especially if you had a first class product like a galaxy)--but more important is tablets. Android is struggling somewhat at this point with tablets. Windows 8 is coming this fall squarely aimed at tablets and unless Android gets off its ass and has some success, will likely do pretty damn well in the tablet space. That is a big problem for Android, imo. With Windows 8 on the desktop and tablet, that is a pretty damn big halo for WP8. It would not be that hard for WP to take share from Android. ESPECIALLY with MS getting royalties when they put Android on. Now...(whew)--you realize that MS has search, maps, ads, email, docs...you realize that Google is cut out even moreso than they are even with Amazon Fire.

Umm..step 2 is sell a crapload of handsets. and yes it has led to profits, and a lot more to come. $2+B this year alone looks about right. Plus not entirely clear what is counted in their revenue estimate at this time.

The supposedly damning point is that Google’s revenue from Android pales in comparison to its mobile revenue in general, which is on a $2.5 billion annual pace driven mostly by mobile searches on iOS devices and in-app advertising through Google’s AdMob subsidiary. ...

The mistake is assuming that Google views this as a big problem, as if Android has been a waste of money because Google makes more money from its competitor. Would Google like to make more revenue from Android? Sure. Money is nice. But Android was a defensive move on Google’s part, and one that wasn’t primarily motivated by desire for revenue or profit.

Assuming the April 1 date on the article doesn't mean it's a joke! I sort of agree with you on Win 8 though:

Echohead2 wrote:

The real threat is MS. and it is looming larger and larger. First you have WP7 that is showing huge percentage gains y/y (though starting out low makes large percentage gains easier) and should expand as more handsets actually make it to market (and especially if you had a first class product like a galaxy)--but more important is tablets. Android is struggling somewhat at this point with tablets. Windows 8 is coming this fall squarely aimed at tablets and unless Android gets off its ass and has some success, will likely do pretty damn well in the tablet space. That is a big problem for Android, imo. ...

Ok the WP7 'huge gains' is silly against the falling trajectory of MS in mobile, but Win 8 may revive their fortunes on phone via halo ('look, this phone's just like my desktop'). The impact Win 8 on tablet will be interesting: I can't decide yet if the wider public will go for it or shun it (relatively speaking).

Umm..step 2 is sell a crapload of handsets. and yes it has led to profits, and a lot more to come. $2+B this year alone looks about right. Plus not entirely clear what is counted in their revenue estimate at this time.

HTC sells a boatload of handsets, Samsung as well with good profits, does Google actually make money on handsets? I know MS makes something like $5-$8 per Android handset but does Google?

Quote:

Plus, Google has a history of giving things away for free--search, email, maps, etc.

They get it back on the ads.

And they make more ad money per iOS device so every Android handset sold instead of of an iOS device would mean less money in their pocket. If they build a platform that people aren't using in a way that enhances their bottom line it is a net loss.

Quote:

Samsung has 90% of the smartphone market? I can only assume this is hyperbole?

Yep, that could happen in China. It is a risk. One I imagine they work on--but that same risk is there for the desktop too, right?

The real threat is MS. and it is looming larger and larger. First you have WP7 that is showing huge percentage gains y/y (though starting out low makes large percentage gains easier) and should expand as more handsets actually make it to market (and especially if you had a first class product like a galaxy)--but more important is tablets. Android is struggling somewhat at this point with tablets. Windows 8 is coming this fall squarely aimed at tablets and unless Android gets off its ass and has some success, will likely do pretty damn well in the tablet space. That is a big problem for Android, imo. With Windows 8 on the desktop and tablet, that is a pretty damn big halo for WP8. It would not be that hard for WP to take share from Android. ESPECIALLY with MS getting royalties when they put Android on. Now...(whew)--you realize that MS has search, maps, ads, email, docs...you realize that Google is cut out even moreso than they are even with Amazon Fire.

I agree with much of that but what's Google's answer to MS making profits off their platform and preventing others from hijacking Android and using it against them?

HTC sells a boatload of handsets, Samsung as well with good profits, does Google actually make money on handsets? I know MS makes something like $5-$8 per Android handset but does Google?

They get money from licensing their services supposedly and of course add revenue from web, from apps, and also their cut of app sales.

Conservative estimates are at $2+B for 2012

Quote:

And they make more ad money per iOS device so every Android handset sold instead of of an iOS device would mean less money in their pocket.

I know you love to lump all of iOS together, but really the comparison is Android phones to iPhones. And I would be willing to bet that the revenue is a LOT closer than people think.

Quote:

...90% looks to be accurate.

umm--not even in the least. First of all, I am going to give you teh benefit of the doubt and assume you meant in S. Korea only. You didn't limit it to S.Korea, but even there, your link says Android has 90%. So naturally Samsung doesn't. BTW--you do know that LG is also in S. Korea and highly liked there as well. So, no, it is not accurate. at all.

...and Amazon and B&N have taken that diversity and used it to build their own vertically-integrated platform like iOS without having to go to the effort of writing an OS from scratch.

So far, Android seems to be doing more harm to Google than good.

Android is a commercial flop for Google. That much is clear. It's making other people lots of money (Microsoft, Carriers, Oems) and helping their enemies build competing platforms (Amazon) but its done jack shit for Google but act as a distraction from their core services.

First of all, I am going to give you teh benefit of the doubt and assume you meant in S. Korea only. You didn't limit it to S.Korea, but even there, your link says Android has 90%. So naturally Samsung doesn't. BTW--you do know that LG is also in S. Korea and highly liked there as well. So, no, it is not accurate. at all.

My mistake, I equated Samsung with Android in Korea. Still I don't understand the comment about N. vs. S. Korea. Does anyone anywhere refer to N. Korea when talking about anything related to consumer tech? They don't even have electricity at night in N. Korea. It doesn't exist as far as any conversation about consumer electronics goes AFAIK. Still that link says 53% of the mobile phone market, not smartphone market, they probably have significantly higher than 53% if that number is all phones as they just sold 5 million of one model last year.

...and Amazon and B&N have taken that diversity and used it to build their own vertically-integrated platform like iOS without having to go to the effort of writing an OS from scratch.

So far, Android seems to be doing more harm to Google than good.

Android is a commercial flop for Google. That much is clear. It's making other people lots of money (Microsoft, Carriers, Oems) and helping their enemies build competing platforms (Amazon) but its done jack shit for Google but act as a distraction from their core services.

Could be worse. We could be stuck with only MS and Apple as mobile platform providers. And we know how well that's worked out in the desktop space, right?

...and Amazon and B&N have taken that diversity and used it to build their own vertically-integrated platform like iOS without having to go to the effort of writing an OS from scratch.

So far, Android seems to be doing more harm to Google than good.

Android is a commercial flop for Google. That much is clear. It's making other people lots of money (Microsoft, Carriers, Oems) and helping their enemies build competing platforms (Amazon) but its done jack shit for Google but act as a distraction from their core services.

Could be worse. We could be stuck with only MS and Apple as mobile platform providers. And we know how well that's worked out in the desktop space, right?

I missed this comic moment. I guess people will tilt at you if you stretch out your arms and twirl them about. It's what you want, yes?

Yeah kinda funny. I was going to do a search and see if it was EH that made one of those comments way back but he supplied a nice fresh quote so he saved me the effort.

I don't get it--what is the big deal? A tablet IS basically a big smartphone (iOS or Android). Does anyone really disagree with that?

Maybe AnandTech's perspective will disabuse you of your 'basically a big iPhone' thinking:

Quote:

It has a display resolution that dwarfs most high-end desktop displays. The panel also puts a real emphasis on quality, not just resolution. For a computing device targeted squarely at the consumer market, both of these things are rarities.

Its SoC is the absolute largest ever squeezed into an ARM based tablet. The chip itself is even bigger than what you find in most mainstream notebooks. It’s expensive, it puts out a ton of heat and it offers a tremendous GPU performance advantage over anything else in its class.

And it has a battery that’s larger than what ships in the current crop of similarly sized ultraportables and Ultrabooks.

The new iPad doesn’t significantly change the tablet usage paradigm, but it does put all previous attempts at building hardware in this space to shame. It’s the sort of no holds barred, performance at any expense design that we’re used to seeing from enthusiast PC component vendors—but in a tablet...from Apple.

...and Amazon and B&N have taken that diversity and used it to build their own vertically-integrated platform like iOS without having to go to the effort of writing an OS from scratch.

So far, Android seems to be doing more harm to Google than good.

Android is a commercial flop for Google. That much is clear. It's making other people lots of money (Microsoft, Carriers, Oems) and helping their enemies build competing platforms (Amazon) but its done jack shit for Google but act as a distraction from their core services.

Could be worse. We could be stuck with only MS and Apple as mobile platform providers. And we know how well that's worked out in the desktop space, right?

Without Android, there’s still be Symbian and BlackBerry, I guess.

And Palm, which had a far more interesting OS, but got kneecapped by Android.

...and Amazon and B&N have taken that diversity and used it to build their own vertically-integrated platform like iOS without having to go to the effort of writing an OS from scratch.

So far, Android seems to be doing more harm to Google than good.

Android is a commercial flop for Google. That much is clear. It's making other people lots of money (Microsoft, Carriers, Oems) and helping their enemies build competing platforms (Amazon) but its done jack shit for Google but act as a distraction from their core services.

Except it isn't a commecial flop for Google. So I guess that kills your whole post.

First of all, I am going to give you teh benefit of the doubt and assume you meant in S. Korea only. You didn't limit it to S.Korea, but even there, your link says Android has 90%. So naturally Samsung doesn't. BTW--you do know that LG is also in S. Korea and highly liked there as well. So, no, it is not accurate. at all.

My mistake, I equated Samsung with Android in Korea.

No problem.

Did you see that point about 20mil mobile phones. That surely is smartphones, right? I mean they ahve about 50mil population.

Quote:

Still I don't understand the comment about N. vs. S. Korea.

Did I say something about N. Korea? I didn't think so. You had said that Samsung had 90% of smartphones. Without any qualifications, that would imply worldwide--so I assumed you meant S. Korea.

Quote:

Still that link says 53% of the mobile phone market, not smartphone market, they probably have significantly higher than 53% if that number is all phones as they just sold 5 million of one model last year.

Like I said--with a population of 50mil, I find 20mil being the total mobile phone market unlikely. Though perhaps that is the yearly sales. But for them to have 90% of smartphones and only 53% of the whole market is hard to reconcile.

Except there are tons of things that point to Google already making a lot of money or in the process of. I mean we hear how it would be great for people to fork it and/or duplicate Google's services so they don't have to pay Google.

You're making a leap here. Google isn't making a "lot of money" relative to the investment. They are making enough money for it to be worth it for people to try and fork to capture some of those revenue streams. And most of the argument for forking comes not from the "making today" issue, but from the "in the process of" positioning ourselves to make money tomorrow.

Does Google make much today on video rental/sales today? Probably not. Will video/rental sales over mobile be a massive market that everyone wants a piece of in 2-5 years? Abso-fucking-lutely.

Is location based mobile advertising a big market today? Not really. Will it be in 2018? You bet your ass.

Books, Magazines, Newspapers... Google makes pennies on this today. It will be real money in a few years.

The bottom line is that what manufacturers and carriers do today will effect their ability to capture markets in the coming years. That's where the pressure for forking comes from, not some mountain of cash that Google is currently sitting on.

Except there are tons of things that point to Google already making a lot of money or in the process of. I mean we hear how it would be great for people to fork it and/or duplicate Google's services so they don't have to pay Google.

You're making a leap here. Google isn't making a "lot of money" relative to the investment. They are making enough money for it to be worth it for people to try and fork to capture some of those revenue streams. And most of the argument for forking comes not from the "making today" issue, but from the "in the process of" positioning ourselves to make money tomorrow.

Does Google make much today on video rental/sales today? Probably not. Will video/rental sales over mobile be a massive market that everyone wants a piece of in 2-5 years? Abso-fucking-lutely.

Is location based mobile advertising a big market today? Not really. Will it be in 2018? You bet your ass.

Books, Magazines, Newspapers... Google makes pennies on this today. It will be real money in a few years.

The bottom line is that what manufacturers and carriers do today will effect their ability to capture markets in the coming years. That's where the pressure for forking comes from, not some mountain of cash that Google is currently sitting on.

Well...they are on track to make about $2B on Android in 2012. Which BTW--is as much as they made on iOS from 2008 through 2011. So, yeah, Android will be just fine.

Last I looked, XBox and WPx were in the same division (the one that doesn't have all that much revenue, at least compared to the main MS divisions) and not separated all that well from each other in the SEC reports I have occasionally looked at. Unless WPx moves to 5 or 10 per cent of mobile, it would be easy for a gain, a loss, or a breakeven to be difficult to tease out of the data unless MS gives out the number verbally in the earnings call.

At circa 10 bucks a phone, it would seem to me very hard to tease that out unless MS gives a verbal shout out or (unlikely, in my view) changes its reporting.

Last I looked, XBox and WPx were in the same division (the one that doesn't have all that much revenue, at least compared to the main MS divisions) and not separated all that well from each other in the SEC reports I have occasionally looked at. Unless WPx moves to 5 or 10 per cent of mobile, it would be easy for a gain, a loss, or a breakeven to be difficult to tease out of the data unless MS gives out the number verbally in the earnings call.

At circa 10 bucks a phone, it would seem to me very hard to tease that out unless MS gives a verbal shout out or (unlikely, in my view) changes its reporting.

Worldwide, PC shipments grew by about 2% to 89 million, which is slightly better than expected....Meanwhile, consumer attention has shifted to tablets like the iPad. A separate Gartner forecast released this week anticipated Apple would sell 73 million iPads this year, up from 40 million last year.

That number is expected to grow to a stunning 170 million in 2016. To top of page

Dell, Acer and Toshiba 'fans' are more likely to be doing that, aren't they? No doubt Mac sales are flatter in advance of anticipated new MacBooks, iMacs and hopefully Mac Pros, but growth was still good. And iPads did well, so HP hasn't taken back Apple's lead. The one HP's CEO predicted.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/12/technology/pc-sales/index.htm?iid=HP_HighlightApple fans are going to implode now

?Why?

Apple has never claimed that Mac sales outpaced any specific PC manufacturer. They've outpaced PC shipments in aggregate. That HP should have a better sales growth quarter than Apple shouldn't be surprising given that (from the article) they were better able than their competitors to source hard drives and stole sales from Dell, Toshiba, Acer, etc. This is deck chair shuffling, not competition as far as Apple is concerned.

Except it isn't a commecial flop for Google. So I guess that kills your whole post.

Still, most of discussions around Android are based on some shiny, awesome future that lies ahead (see your own resolution-independance-with-ICS point), and while _currently_ Android seems like a solid bet for a lot of hardware manufacturers, it’s much less clear it will stay that way going forward.

Samsung is working on their own OS and ad network (and TV and probably content streaming services), Apple and others seems to be interested in moving away from Google services (like Maps), most hardware manufacturers whose names don’t start with Sam and end with Sung are practically non-existent in terms of marketshare and, thus, less invested in an Android future. It seems like Google wants to take over the smartphone market by relegating the handset makers to truly interchangeable cheap hardware providers, and I don’t think that’s something these want. Obviously both Google and the hardware makers are thinking the same, as Google bought Motorola and the device makers (Samsung, most notably), are still/again actively looking into alternatives (some more openly than others).

Based on that impression (that I personally have), it’s hard to be too optimistic about Google and Android for 2014 and beyond. But at least by 2014, every device will actually ship with ICS, so they’ll have resolution independance, at least.

Here’s where Apple’s approach is actually protecting them—they are not dependant on outside sources for the OS or on (too many) outside sources for the hardware. The only company that can halt iOS development or iDevice production is Apple. I even think that the Microsoft/Nokia partnership looks like a better long-term bet than HTC/Android or Samsung/Android. And Amazon definitely proved that you don’t necessarily need Google or the name Android to make it work.

Except it isn't a commecial flop for Google. So I guess that kills your whole post.

Still, most of discussions around Android are based on some shiny, awesome future that lies ahead (see your own resolution-independance-with-ICS point), and while _currently_ Android seems like a solid bet for a lot of hardware manufacturers, it’s much less clear it will stay that way going forward.

I'm sorry if talking about 2012 is the "big bad future". I mean it isn't like I am talking about 2015 or something--I am talking about THIS YEAR. Google will have $2+B revenue on Android.

Quote:

Apple and others seems to be interested in moving away from Google services (like Maps),

I know--and just imagine if there wer no Android and Appple did that!

Quote:

most hardware manufacturers whose names don’t start with Sam and end with Sung are practically non-existent in terms of marketshare

I think HTC, LG, and Moto might disagree.

Quote:

Based on that impression (that I personally have), it’s hard to be too optimistic about Google and Android for 2014 and beyond. But at least by 2014, every device will actually ship with ICS, so they’ll have resolution independance, at least.

Yeah, but then you will be complaining that Jelly Bean or Krispi Kreme (Probably not the name as it is trademarked) or whatever L is called will be out and you will be complain that it is low marketshare.

and why not? Unless WIndows takes share, there is nothign in Android's way.

Quote:

The only company that can halt iOS development or iDevice production is Apple.

They will, first of all, there are still a lot of first gen iPad owners out there who will make the upgrade. Secondly, there are likely a hell of a lot of first time tablet buyers who will be getting the new iPad. Lastly, the competition, quite bluntly sucks.

If you're looking for a tablet today, you almost literally have no choice but to get an iPad.

Except it isn't a commecial flop for Google. So I guess that kills your whole post.

Still, most of discussions around Android are based on some shiny, awesome future that lies ahead (see your own resolution-independance-with-ICS point), and while _currently_ Android seems like a solid bet for a lot of hardware manufacturers, it’s much less clear it will stay that way going forward.

I'm sorry if talking about 2012 is the "big bad future". I mean it isn't like I am talking about 2015 or something--I am talking about THIS YEAR. Google will have $2+B revenue on Android.

Apple and Samsung combined for about 91% of profits with RIM third at 3.7%, HTC fourth at 3.0% and Nokia last at 1.8% of a $15 billion total for the quarter.

In terms of revenues, Apple had 39% to Samsung’s 25%. Third was Nokia with 12.6% and fourth RIM at 8%. HTC only managed 5.5%, Motorola 4%, LG 3.3% and Sony Ericsson 2.7%.

I’m sure HTC, LG and Moto—and their shareholders—are all pretty happy with that situation.

Echohead2 wrote:

Yeah, but then you will be complaining that Jelly Bean or Krispi Kreme (Probably not the name as it is trademarked) or whatever L is called will be out and you will be complain that it is low marketshare.

and why not? Unless WIndows takes share, there is nothign in Android's way.

I’m not complaining, I’m pointing and laughing. Now the office mates of mine who have to develop software that has to also run on Android, they’re complaining a lot. You wouldn’t believe how much fun HTML5 app development can be with Android 2.2, 2.3 et al.

Echohead2 wrote:

Quote:

The only company that can halt iOS development or iDevice production is Apple.

Unless people decide they like someone else's product better.

Right, that also made Apple stop making personal computers in the early 2000s, right?